[lbo-talk] URPE Summer Conference -- Aug 15-18 -- REGISTER NOW! ORGANIZE A PANEL!

[Miles Jackson]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> On Jul 11, 2008, at 8:55 PM, Jim Farmelant wrote:
> 
>> And many philosophers of science would agree with
>> Laibman on that point.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure economics is a science, but that might be a quibble.
> 
> Why do you have to prove a successor truth when you think something  is 
> untrue?

You don't.  The argument is incoherent.  If a theory is consistently 
contradicted by data, it's not a good scientific theory.  Whether or not 
there are other theories that explain the contradictory data is irrelevant.

Miles